Gee, it’s nice everybody actually read and considered the arguments presented in the article.
When an article makes ridiculous claims at the start, the exercise is as useless as reading HuffPost. ID is not some creationist plot. How ridiculous. ID is just as valid, in fact more-so statistically, than the magical theory of the ‘big accident’.
This is yet again the expansive reading of the non-Constitutional concept of ‘separation of church and state’, to say that ANY idea that is not atheistic in approach, is invalid in the public sphere.
Darwin himself recognized in Origin of Species that his theory had many difficulties. He listed four objections that he recognized, if not resolved, would be fatal to his theory. They were, in order:
The lack of transitional forms
The incredible complexity of such organs as the eye
The development of instincts in animals
The sterility in crossbreeding of species
try that on for some real MEAT!!
incredible complexity
that mean nasty term used by CREATIONISTS
how did the first EYE develop?? the smart lil amobea KNEW there was something to SEE......out there did they??
It was/is a silly specious article. Unintentionally hilarious at times.
This is especially funny:
“As an analogy, consider the 13-letter sequence “TOBEORNOTTOBE.” Those hypothetical million monkeys, each pecking out one phrase a second, could take as long as 78,800 years to find it among the 2613 sequences of that length. But in the 1980s Richard Hardison of Glendale College wrote a computer program that generated phrases randomly while preserving the positions of individual letters that happened to be correctly placed (in effect, selecting for phrases more like Hamlet’s). On average, the program re-created the phrase in just 336 iterations, less than 90 seconds. Even more amazing, it could reconstruct Shakespeare’s entire play in just four and a half days.”
I also like the part where the author decides to claim it is all bogus that scientific theory has to be disprovable or falsifiable.
“Gee, it’s nice everybody actually read and considered the arguments presented in the article.”
You’re an idiot if you think an article that uses the an invective like “nonsense” is worthy of reading much less commenting on. Such bias is for children’s arguments. What’s next, are going to say my mother wears combat boots?
Moron.